THE GENERAL MANAGER vs SAURABH RAJ
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:54595-DB
WA No. 1937 of 2026
R
CNR: KAHC010563932026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 30 DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.SHANTHI BHUSHAN
WRIT APPEAL NO. 1937 OF 2026 (S-DIS)
BETWEEN:
THE GENERAL MANAGER
STATE BANK OF INDIA
NW-1, NO. 65, ST MARKS ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 001
NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS
ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER
HUMAN RESOURCE DEPARTMENT
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI. T.P.MUTHANNA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
SAURABH RAJ
S/O ANIL KUMAR JHA
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
R/AT FLAT NO. L 102,
CITILIGHTS RUSTIQUE
ECC ROAD, WHITE FIELD,
BENGALURU - 560 066.
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. RAVIKIRAN P PAWAR, ADVOCATE FOR C/R
IN CP NO.15570/2026)
Digitally signed
by MALA K N
Location:
HIGH COURT
OF
KARNATAKA
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:54595-DB
WA No. 1937 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010563932026
THIS WRIT APPEAL FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE
RECORDS AND A) SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 16/06/2026
PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WP
NO.40314/2016 AND B) GRANT SUCH OTHER RELIEF/s AS
THIS HON’BLE COURT MAY DEEM FIT TO GRAN IN THE
CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE TO THE APPELLANT BANK.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,
THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH
AND
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.SHANTHI BHUSHAN
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.SHANTHI BHUSHAN)
The present appeal is filed challenging the impugned
order dated 16.06.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge in
Writ Petition No. 40314 of 2016 (S-DIS), wherein the learned
Single Judge was pleased to allow the writ petition filed by the
respondent herein, quash the termination letter dated
01.06.2016 and direct the appellant - Bank to reinstate the
respondent with all consequential benefits.
2. For the sake of convenience, parties shall be
referred to as per their status before the Writ Court.
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:54595-DB
WA No. 1937 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010563932026
3. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner, an
engineering graduate with prior technical work experience,
joined the service of the respondent - State Bank of India as a
Probationary Officer in Junior Management Grade Scale-I
(JMGS-I) on 09.12.2013 pursuant to an offer of appointment
dated 07.09.2013. Under the Bank’s probation rules and Policy
Circular dated 09.06.2011, confirmation was subject to
satisfactory completion of a two-year probation period
(09.12.2013 to 08.12.2015) and passing the prescribed
evaluation tests. By E-Circular dated 16.12.2014, the Bank
introduced an incentive scheme granting weightage of 3 grace
marks for acquiring each of three specified professional
qualifications namely, Certified Insurance Facilitator (CIF),
Specified Person for Corporate Agent (SPCA), and Mutual Fund
Distributors Certification Examination (MFDCE) up to a
maximum of 9 grace marks. In the first confirmation test held
on 05.07.2015, the petitioner failed to secure the minimum
qualifying benchmark of 50%. Consequently, his probation was
extended by six months, and he was granted a re-test on
23.04.2016. During the extended probation continuum, the
petitioner successfully cleared the CIF examination on
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:54595-DB
WA No. 1937 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010563932026
18.07.2015 and the SPCA examination on 16.09.2015, earning
6 grace marks. In the second confirmation re-test, for which
results declared on 20.05.2016, the petitioner secured 91.83
marks out of 200, which, combined with the 6 grace marks,
aggregated to 97.83 marks (48.91%).
4. In continuation of his efforts to meet the
confirmation criteria within his extended probation, the
petitioner registered and appeared for the third qualifying
examination, MFDCE, on 27.05.2016 and duly communicated
the intimation email to the Bank on the same day. The
petitioner successfully passed the MFDCE examination, and the
pass certificate was formally issued on 10.06.2016. The
petitioner contended that upon adding 3 grace marks for
MFDCE, his total score reached 100.83 out of 200 (50.41%),
exceeding the qualifying threshold. However, the Bank issued a
termination letter dated 01.06.2016 under Rule 16(3) of the
SBI Officers' Service Rules, arbitrarily denying him the benefit
of 3 grace marks. Aggrieved by the termination, the petitioner
approached the Writ Court, relying on the binding decision of
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:54595-DB
WA No. 1937 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010563932026
Thasmitha S. v. State Bank of
the High Court of Kerala in
1
India .
5. The respondent – Bank filed its statement of
objections asserting that appointment and confirmation are
governed by Rules 14, 15, and 16 of the State Bank of India
Officers' Service Rules, 1992, read with Circulars dated
25.08.2014, 16.12.2014, and 21.03.2016. The Bank contended
that a probationer has no indefeasible right to hold a post and
is liable to be discharged if found unsuitable upon evaluation.
The Bank submitted that under Para (v) of Circular dated
16.12.2014, qualifications must be acquired before the
completion of probation, requiring formal communication of
results prior to completion, and specifying that mere
appearance in the test is insufficient. Furthermore, the
Clarificatory Circular dated 21.03.2016 stipulated that after the
declaration of the re-test result, no further time shall be
granted for acquiring qualifications for grace marks. The Bank
argued that since the petitioner secured 97.83 marks in the re-
test declared on 20.05.2016, and the MFDCE result was
1
WP(C). 11802/2016 (Kerala High Court)
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:54595-DB
WA No. 1937 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010563932026
declared on 10.06.2016 after his extended probation expired on
06.06.2016, he was not entitled to 3 additional grace marks.
Consequently, his termination vide letter dated 01.06.2016 was
a valid discharge.
6. The learned Single Judge based the reasoning on
the proper interpretation of the circular provisions governing
probation confirmation and the acquisition of additional
professional qualifications. It was established that clause (viii)
of the applicable circular acts as an exception to the general
rule by permitting candidates whose probation was extended
due to an initial failure in the confirmation test to benefit from
professional qualifications acquired subsequent to the initial
two-year period, provided they are successfully obtained prior
to the expiration of the extended probation window.
7. The Court placed substantial reliance on the binding
Thasmitha
precedent established by the Kerala High Court in
S. v. State Bank of India
(supra) , which affirmed that
employees are entitled to claim grace marks for qualifications
pursued and completed during an extended probation period.
Finding that the petitioner had acted within the extended
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:54595-DB
WA No. 1937 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010563932026
timeframe and duly informed the management, the Single
Judge concurred with this legal position. Consequently, the
refusal by the bank to award the final set of grace marks for
the qualification obtained during the extended period was held
to be legally erroneous and unsustainable.
8. In light of the above reasoning, the Writ Petition
was allowed and the impugned termination order issued by the
Bank was quashed and set aside. The respondent - Bank was
formally directed to reinstate the petitioner into service with all
consequential benefits within a stipulated period.
9. Aggrieved by the said order passed by the Learned
Single Judge, the respondent- Bank is before this Court.
10. Heard the arguments of Sri. T. P. Muthanna,
learned counsel for the respondent - Bank, and Sri. Ravikiran P.
Pawar, learned counsel for the respondent, and perused the
records.
11. Sri. T. P. Muthanna, learned counsel for the
respondent - Bank, submitted that the delay of 6 days in filing
the Writ Appeal occurred due to administrative processing
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:54595-DB
WA No. 1937 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010563932026
between the Local Head Office and Corporate Authorities,
constituting sufficient cause under Section 5 of the Limitation
Thasmitha S.
Act. The learned Single Judge erred in relying on
v. State Bank of India
(supra) , as in that case the candidate
acquired the qualification on 06.03.2016, prior to the expiry of
probation on 16.03.2016. In contrast, the present respondent’s
extended probation expired on 06.06.2016, whereas his MFDCE
result was declared on 10.06.2016. Para (v) of Circular dated
16.12.2014 explicitly mandates formal communication of
results before completion of probation, stating that mere
appearance in the test is insufficient. Circular dated 21.03.2016
specifies that once a candidate fails in the re-test, no further
time shall be allowed for acquiring grace marks after the
declaration of re-test results. A probationer has no indefeasible
right to the post, and discharge simpliciter for failing to attain
the qualifying benchmark cannot be faulted.
12. Sri. Ravikiran P. Pawar, learned counsel for the
respondent, submitted that, the delay of 6 days is not
vehemently contested so as to facilitate an adjudication on
merits. The respondent acted with diligence by appearing for
- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:54595-DB
WA No. 1937 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010563932026
the MFDCE examination on 27.05.2016, well within the
extended probation period ending on 06.06.2016, and duly
intimated the Bank on the same day. The declaration of results
on 10.06.2016 was an administrative act beyond his control.
Clause (viii) of Circular dated 16.12.2014 is a beneficial
provision explicitly providing that for candidates whose
probation is extended due to failure in the first confirmation
test, the benefit of qualifications shall be added to the next
confirmation test scores. The ratio laid down by the High Court
Thasmitha S. v. State Bank of India
of Kerala in [WP(C) No.
11802/2016, affirmed in W.A. No. 1676/2016] squarely
applies, as held by the learned Single Judge. Awarding 3 grace
marks elevates the respondent's aggregate score to 100.83 out
of 200 (50.41%), crossing the qualifying benchmark and
rendering his termination illegal.
13. Having heard the learned counsel for both sides and
upon perusal of the material on record, the primary question
that arises for our consideration is;
“Whether the Learned Single Judge was justified in
relying upon the judgment of the High Court of
Kerala in Thasmitha S. v. State Bank of India
- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:54595-DB
WA No. 1937 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010563932026
[WP(C) No. 11802/2016] to hold that the
respondent is entitled to 3 grace marks for passing
the MFDCE examination, thereby quashing the
termination order dated 01.06.2016?”
14. At the heart of this appellate controversy lies a
fundamental clash between a banking institution’s rigid
adherence to technical administrative timelines and a young
probationary officer’s diligent pursuit of professional excellence
to secure his livelihood. The narrative unfolds against the
backdrop of the State Bank of India Officers’ Service Rules,
1992, and a series of administrative e-circulars designed to
evaluate and confirm newly recruited Probationary Officers in
Junior Management Grade Scale-I (JMGS-I). The respondent, a
qualified engineering graduate with prior industry experience,
entered the service of the respondent - Bank on 09.12.2013,
subject to a mandatory two-year probation period wherein
confirmation was contingent upon passing prescribed
evaluation tests. When the respondent failed to achieve the
50% qualifying benchmark in his initial confirmation test held
on 05.07.2015, the Bank, pursuant to its policy circular dated
09.06.2011, extended his probation by six months to grant him
a second opportunity via a re-test conducted on 23.04.2016.
- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:54595-DB
WA No. 1937 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010563932026
15. To properly appreciate the legal entitlement
asserted by the respondent, one must examine the institutional
purpose of E-Circular dated 16.12.2014, whereby the Bank
consciously instituted an incentive scheme granting 3 grace
marks for each specialized cross-selling qualification acquired
namely Certified Insurance Facilitator (CIF), Specified Person
for Corporate Agent (SPCA), and Mutual Fund Distributors
Certification Examination (MFDCE) up to an aggregate ceiling of
9 grace marks. A holistic reading of the annexure to the said
circular reveals two distinct operational spheres. While Clauses
(v), (vi), and (vii) lay down the general rule requiring
probationers under normal circumstances to acquire
qualifications within the initial two-year probation period,
Clause (viii) was deliberately crafted as a beneficial exception.
Clause (viii) explicitly mandates that in respect of a candidate
whose probation is extended due to failure in the first
confirmation test, the benefit of additional qualifications
acquired during the extended probation shall be added to the
next confirmation test scores.
- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:54595-DB
WA No. 1937 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010563932026
16. During the course of his extended probation, the
respondent proactively sat for and cleared the CIF examination
on 18.07.2015 and the SPCA examination on 16.09.2015,
thereby earning 6 grace marks. In the second confirmation re-
test held on 23.04.2016 (results declared on 20.05.2016), the
respondent secured 91.83 marks out of 200 in the written
paper, which, combined with the 6 grace marks, yielded an
aggregate score of 97.83 marks (48.91%) falling narrowly
short of the 50% qualifying benchmark. Undeterred and
determined to cross the threshold, the respondent immediately
registered, applied, and appeared for the third qualifying
examination, MFDCE, on 27.05.2016, and formally transmitted
the enrollment details via email to the Bank on the exact same
day all well within his extended probation period which ran up
to 06.06.2016. He successfully passed the examination with a
score of 62%, and the formal pass certificate was issued on
10.06.2016.
17. The core legal issue came to a head when the Bank,
ignoring the respondent’s timely appearance in the MFDCE
examination during extended probation, precipitously issued a
- 13 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:54595-DB
WA No. 1937 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010563932026
termination letter dated 01.06.2016 under Rule 16(3) of the
Officers' Service Rules, refusing to reckon the additional 3
grace marks on the hyper-technical ground that under Para (v)
of the Circular dated 16.12.2014 and Clarificatory Letter dated
21.03.2016, formal result declaration must precede the expiry
of probation. The learned Single Judge of this Court has rightly
rejected this wooden construction and quashed the termination
order, holding that the controversy was squarely governed by
the binding precedent of the High Court of Kerala in
Thasmitha S. v. State Bank of India
(supra) , affirmed in
2
Writ Appeal No. 1676 of 2016 on 25.08.2016.
18. In examining the Bank's challenge in this Writ
Thasmitha S.
Appeal, we find that the Bank's contention that
( supra ) is distinguishable on the ground that the candidate
therein received her pass result ten days prior to probation
expiry, whereas the present respondent’s pass certificate was
issued four days after the technical end of probation, is a
distinction without a difference in law. It is a settled canon of
legal interpretation that administrative circulars issued to
2
State Bank of India v. Thasmitha S, 2016 SCC OnLine Ker 15264
- 14 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:54595-DB
WA No. 1937 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010563932026
encourage skill enhancement must be interpreted purposively
so as to advance their beneficial object rather than defeat it
through procedural traps. The respondent performed every
positive, substantive act required of him within the active
probation window by preparing for, registering, appearing in,
and notifying the Bank of the MFDCE test on 27.05.2016. The
minor lag in the formal declaration of results on 10.06.2016 by
an independent external testing agency (NISM) was a purely
ministerial delay entirely beyond the officer's control.
19. Arithmetically, upon crediting the 3 grace marks for
the MFDCE examination to the respondent’s re-test score, his
aggregate tally reaches 100.83 out of 200 (50.41%), thereby
comfortably surpassing the mandatory 50% qualifying
threshold. Consequently, denying a young officer his legitimate
confirmation and terminating his services under the guise of
"unsatisfactory performance" when he had, in fact, attained the
requisite qualification during his extended probation continuum
is manifestly arbitrary and unreasonable. We fully endorse the
reasoning of the learned Single Judge and the High Court of
Kerala that Clause (viii) operates as an overriding exception
- 15 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:54595-DB
WA No. 1937 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010563932026
designed to protect probationers who improve their
qualifications during extended probation. We find no infirmity or
illegality in the impugned order dated 16.06.2026. In the
result, we pass the following order:
ORDER
i) The Writ Appeal is hereby dismissed , affirming the
order dated 16.06.2026 passed by the learned Single
Judge in Writ Petition No. 40314 of 2016 (S-DIS).
ii) The appellant State Bank of India is directed to
reinstate the respondent (Saurabh Raj) into service
with all consequential benefits within four weeks from
the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.
iii) Parties shall bear their own costs.
Pending I.As. if any, do not survive for consideration,
accordingly disposed of.
Sd/-
(D K SINGH)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(H.SHANTHI BHUSHAN)
JUDGE
BVK
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 21